For example, if you own a hammer, but the Government makes it illegal to strike a nail, do you still own a “hammer” or do you own nothing more than a stick with a chunk of metal on the end? I propose you only own the stick. If a Government regulation is such that the purpose of the object which you believe you own is deprived of that purpose, then you are deprived of the object itself.
Therefore you don’t own it because you need Government’s permission to use the object for its purpose.
Consider your car.
Every year we pay Road Rent to the Government. They call it a vehicle registration fee. If we do not pay the Road Rent to the Government for their permission to drive on the roads, then our car is not permitted to legally drive on them. If the purpose of the car is denied to you, then are you not denied the car itself?
The same holds true for your house. You may think you own your house, but you don’t.
Every year you must pay Government Land Rent so the Government will let you live in your house. If you do not pay the Government Land Rent to the Government for their permission to live in the structure that sits upon their land, then your house is subject to a lien for all that you owe the Government. Again, if the purpose of the house, a place of safety and security for your whole life, is denied to you, then are you not denied the house itself?
Therefore, you don’t really own your car and you don’t really own your house, at least not without the Government’s permission, which you must ask for every single year, with your money.
Is that freedom?